Poker Software Bots Discussed in House Internet Gambling Hearing

Earlier this week, the U.S. House Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade tackled the complex topic of legalizing and regulating online gaming. A variety of subjects were discussed, among them the threat of poker bots. Yes, that’s right: lawmakers from the four corners of the United States – many of whom have likely never played online poker – discussed whether poker bots presented a viable obstacle to our industry’s legalization.

Chapman University School of Law Professor Kurt Eggert introduced the subcommittee to the concept of poker bots and poker software in general. Eggert argued, “Professional players have new tools to use against recreational gamblers that far exceed anything they can do in a casino poker table.”

Eggert added that while bots are universally banned on the major online poker sites, they might still pose a threat: “A recent [American Gaming Association] white paper… says sites can ban bots. However, there’s a footnote that says if someone is using a bot to guide them, there’s no way to restrict them. I know of no way to prevent a person from having a bot on one computer telling you what to play on another computer.” In essence, a poker room wouldn’t be able to detect bot use if a player is utilizing two different machines.

FairPlayUSA Chairwoman Perry Aftab countered Eggert’s point: “The online sites, if they’re well done, can watch for [bots] as well. Once you’re dealing with full authentication, it allows you to start tracking patterns.” Aftab’s point was that you’ll quickly be able to see if a player is winning at a much higher rate by simply examining their past patterns of behavior.

Members of the subcommittee continued to bring the discussion back to bot use in two separate rounds of questioning. Eggert responded to one lawmaker’s inquiry by saying, “I don’t think you can prevent people from using bots. The solution would be to have a rating system whereby if you want to play against people, [you] know if they’re good or bad.”

Eggert’s solution appeared to be similar in nature to a present-day HUD that simply rates a player based on their track record.

Congressman Joe Barton (R-TX), the brains behind HR 2366, which would legalize and regulate online poker in the United States, then jumped into the fray. Barton gave his two cents on whether bots presented a certifiable problem: “It’s technically possible to create an elaborate scheme with bots, but we can always guarantee that someone is a live body at the table. If you have that, you’re not going to set up an elaborate computer scheme to play in a $0.01/$0.02 Limit poker game.”

On the average player being taken to the cleaners by bots at the upper levels of poker, Barton asserted, “You’d be an absolute idiot to go online and get into a high-dollar poker game.” To mitigate lawmakers’ concerns about players using and abusing poker software, Barton offered up the possibility of sending repeat offenders to jail.

In an interview with the popular poker forum PocketFives.com, Poker Players Alliance Executive Director John Pappas, who was in attendance at the hearing, noted that he didn’t expect the subject of poker bots to be so popular. Pappas explained that while the bot discussion appeared in Eggert’s pre-submitted testimony, “You can’t anticipate everything that’s going to be discussed.”

Eggert claimed that bots “can be purchased on eBay or other internet sites” and “it may be increasingly difficult for internet poker sites to bar poker bots from their tables.”

A follow-up hearing has not yet been scheduled, but Pappas told PocketFives.com that in the future, he hopes the committee will invite witnesses with technical expertise. Other hot topics during the hearing included consumer protection and checks against underage and problem gambling.